DOCUMENTOS CIDOB ASIA 23 REGIONALISM AND INTERREGIONALISM IN THE ASEM CONTEXT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DOCUMENTOS CIDOB
ASIA 23
REGIONALISM AND
INTERREGIONALISM IN THE
ASEM CONTEXT
Current Dynamics and Theoretical
Approaches
Yeo Lay Hwee
Lluc López i Vidal
Elisabets, 12 - 08001 Barcelona, España - Tel. (+34) 93 302 6495 - Fax. (+34) 93 302 6495 - info@cidob.orgRegionalism and
Interregionalism in
the ASEM context
Current Dynamics and
Theoretical Approaches
Yeo Lay Hwee
Lluc López i Vidal
In collaboration withdocumentos
Serie: Asia
Número 23. Regionalism and Interregionalism in the ASEM con-
text: Current Dynamics and Theoretical Approaches
© Yeo Lay Hwee y Lluc López i Vidal
© Fundació CIDOB, de esta edición
Barcelona, diciembre de 2008
Edita: CIDOB edicions
Elisabets, 12
08001 Barcelona
Tel. 93 302 64 95
Fax. 93 302 21 18
E-mail: publicaciones@cidob.org
URL: http://www.cidob.org
Depósito legal: B-46.802-2001
ISSN: 1696-9987
Imprime: Color Marfil, S.L.
Distribuye: Edicions Bellaterra, S.L.
Navas de Tolosa, 289 bis, 08026 Barcelona
www.ed-bellaterra.com
«Cualquier forma de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública o transformación de esta obra
solo puede ser realizada con la autorización de sus titulares, salvo excepción prevista por la ley. Diríjase a
CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos, www.cedro.org) si necesita fotocopiar o escanear
algún fragmento de esta obra»Regionalism and Interregionalism in
the ASEM context: Current Dynamics and
Theoretical Approaches
Yeo Lay Hwee*
Lluc López i Vidal**
December 2008
*Senior Research Fellow, Singapore Institute of International Affairs
& Associate Director, European Union Centre in Singapore
**Political Science Lecturer at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
and Universitat Pompeu FabraContents Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM.............................................. 7 Yeo Lay Hwee Theoretical Underpinnings of Regionalism and Interregionalism.................. 8 Regionalism, Interregionalism, Global Governance and the ASEM Process........... 11 Advancing Regionalism and Interregionalism within the ASEM Framework?...... 15 Conclusions.................................................................................................27 Bibliographycal References.......................................................................... 28 The Theoretical Contribution of the Study of Regionalism and Interregionalism in the ASEM Process.............................................. 31 Lluc López i Vidal Regionalism and Interregionalism in the Theory of International Relations............................................................................ 32 ASEM: The Missing Link............................................................................ 52 Conclusions ................................................................................................64 Epilogue: Proposals for a Joint Agenda ....................................................... 67 List of Main Acronyms . ............................................................................. 69 Bibliographycal References ......................................................................... 70
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM
Yeo Lay Hwee
ASEM was launched in 1996 with a summit in Bangkok that brought
together leaders of 10 East Asian states (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan and South
Korea) and the 15 EU member states plus the President of the European
Commission.
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) was conceived in Singapore as an
informal meeting between Asian and European leaders to enable the EU
to engage dynamic Asian economies in a wide-ranging dialogue. The
early 1990s saw the unilateral liberalization of various Southeast Asian
economies and the opening up of the Chinese market. At the same
time, the European Union was integrating further with the 1986 Single
European Act and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. There were, therefore,
strong economic reasons for the two regions to strengthen dialogue. The
EU wanted to partake in the benefits of the strong growth in Asia, and
not to lose out to Americans and Japanese. The Asians worried about
Fortress Europe with the creation of the Single Market, its focus on
Central and Eastern Europe and the internal debates on the Maastricht
Treaty. They wanted to be sure that they would not be shut out of
Europe. Engaging Europe is also a way of diversifying their economic
and foreign policy dependence away from the Americans.
The strategic reason behind ASEM was the concept of closing the tri-
angle – balancing relations and creating strong links between the three
engines of growth – America, Europe and East Asia. The argument was
that strong transatlantic ties exist between Europe and the US and transpa-
cific ties were also increasingly dense because of APEC and other bilateral
relations that exist between the US and its various Asian partners. But ties
between Europe and Asia were weak and lacking, and hence the need to
have a forum under which linkages can be built and strengthened.
7Yeo Lay Hwee
The genesis and development of ASEM (and APEC in the early 1990s)
brought forth the serious and intense debates in both academic and
policy circles about the state of regionalism in East Asia and the nexus
between interregionalism and global order. The numerous theoretical
debates in the 1990s focus on how regionalism and interregionalism can
be seen as responses to globalisation and on a policy level, debates were
on how informal institutions, frameworks and processes such as APEC
and ASEM can contribute to multi-level global governance.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Regionalism and Interregionalism
Regionalism and interregionalism are contested concepts.
In this paper, I have embraced an expansive concept of regionalism,
not as a mere geographical concept but as one which encompasses
three other dimensions as underlined by Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey
Underhill. The first dimension concerns the extent to which countries
in a definable geographical area have significant historical experiences
in common and find themselves facing the same general problems.
The second dimension emphasises the extent to which these countries
have developed socio-cultural, economic and political linkages that
distinguish them from the rest of the community. The third dimension
focuses on the extent to which these countries have developed institu-
tions to manage crucial aspects of their collective affairs (Stubbs and
Underhill, 1994:331-2).
Regionalism should also be seen as a dynamic process that encom-
passes different phenomena happening at the various stages of its forma-
tion. In this process-oriented concept, the first stage of moving towards
a cohesive region is regionalisation. This refers to the growth of integra-
tion that is often “undirected”, driven by market-based imperatives and
not by the conscious policy of the states. During this stage, the state can
complement the process when it gets involved in the negotiations of
inter-state agreements to facilitate and strengthen the process of market
8 Documentos CIDOB, AsiaRegionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM integration. A further extension of inter-state cooperation can broaden and deepen the process of regionalism. All these processes could be helped if regional awareness, which is the shared perception of belong- ing to a particular community resting on internal factors such as shared history and culture and external factors such as common threat percep- tions, is widespread. At some point, a combination of all these factors – regionalisation, emergence of regional consciousness and regional inter-state cooperation might lead to the formation of a cohesive and consolidated regional entity (Hurrell, 1994:38-45). Looking at regionalism from the above perspectives, how then can one place interregionalism? One could simply see interregionalism as being relations between two regional entities. However, if one attempts to provide greater nuance, it should also encompass how the two proc- esses of regionalism and interregionalism interact and impact each other, shaping the consciousness and contour of the regions, and influencing the institutional development of an emerging world order. In this paper, the interregionalism here covers two broad types of relationships. The first type is what would be termed pure interregional- ism, which is a group-to-group relationship such as EU-ASEAN, where two defined regional entities interact with each other. The second can be termed ‘hybrid’ interregionalism (and some analysts use the term “trans-regionalism) such as ASEM, APEC and FEALAC in which the two ‘regions’ that relate to each other may not be clearly defined. Membership is more diffuse and may not coincide neatly with regional organizations. Theoretical work on interregionalism is fairly new and sparse as inter- regionalism is a relatively new phenomenon that followed the rise of the concept of new regionalism in the late 1980s. However, the practice of “interregionalism” can be traced back to the 1970s with Europe’s precursor role in establishing group-to-group dialogue. Early studies on interre- gionalism concentrated on the European Union and its hub-and-spoke system of external relations. Edwards & Regelsberger (eds) book on Europe’s Número 23, 2008 9
Yeo Lay Hwee Global Links: The European Community and Inter-regional Cooperation (1990) provided a well-informed overview of the EC’s group-to-group dialogues. In examining the trends in EU interregionalism, Vinod Aggarwal and Edward Fogarty (2004) believe that a synthesis of market-driven globalism and politically-driven regionalism and exploring the dynamics of the interplay of market forces and political actors may help explain the evolution and future trends of the EU’s inter-regional regimes or cooperation frameworks. In international relations and diplomacy, the proliferation of inter- regional frameworks in the 1990s is explained by institutionalists as a result of the need to manage the increasingly complex interdependence brought about by globalization. It has the potential to become a new layer in an increasingly differentiated global order. With the emergence of inter-regional dialogues, at least five major policy-making levels can be identified in the international arena – the global, multilateral level (such as UN, WTO); inter-regional dialogues such as APEC and ASEM; regional groupings such as the EU, ASEAN; sub-regional dialogue such as the Greater Mekong subregion; and bilateral relations. All these different layers of interactions in different ways help to manage the complexities of globalization and contribute to the evolution of global governance. For the realists, interregionalism arises as a reaction to increased regionalism and the fear of ‘fortress regions’. Interregionalism is there- fore seen as arising from the need to balance regionalism in other regions as well as interregionalism between other regions. Thus to the realists, ASEM is a direct reaction to APEC and APEC in turn was a response to the fear of a fortress Europe and the implications of the Asia-Pacific countries being left out because of NAFTA. Depending on which school of thought one subscribes to, inter- regional dialogues can serve various functions. For the realists, the primary function of inter-regional dialogues or cooperation frameworks is balancing. Institutionalists on the other hand, highlight the potential 10 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM of inter-regional dialogues to serve as rationalisers or agenda-setters in global multilateral forums, and most importantly, their contribution to overall institution-building in an emerging multi-layered system of global governance. Finally, there are also the social constructivists who essentially see inter-regional forums as identity-builders, as they claim that inter-regional dialogues can trigger and stimulate processes of intra- regional coordination and cooperation. What is the state of development of regionalism and interregionalism in the ASEM process? How much has ASEM as a process and frame- work contributed to the regionalisation processes in the two regions, Asia and Europe, and as an inter-regional framework, how much has it contributed to the construction of a global order based on the concept of multi-level governance? Regionalism, Interregionalism, Global Governance and the ASEM Process ASEM was conceived in the mid-1990s when there was much eupho- ria about the benefits of globalisation and more optimism with regard to international cooperation. Multilateralism was also seen as the key principle underpinning a new emerging global order that would likely be multi-polar in nature. The economic rise of East Asia and increas- ing regionalisation was also generating internal debates and external expectations of an emerging East Asian community that would begin to play a more proactive role in shaping the global order. The first attempt to institutionalise East Asian regionalism was the proposal from then Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to form an East Asian Economic Grouping (EAEG) comprised exclusively of East Asian economies. However, because of strong opposition from the US and the reluctance of Japan to support this initiative, it was downplayed and reconstituted as a modest East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) within the APEC framework. Número 23, 2008 11
Yeo Lay Hwee Despite the above, when ASEM began, it was presented as an inter- governmental, state-to-state forum. However, social constructivists wanted to believe that though officially states participate in an individual capacity in ASEM, in practice they frequently act along regional lines based on existing or incipient collective identities. They therefore view ASEM from the angle of identity-building, particularly for East Asians. ASEM, in their opinion, has helped to construct the notion of an East Asian region through a series of coordinating mechanisms that were needed when East Asians prepare for ASEM meetings. East Asian mem- bers were driven to organise themselves on a regional basis by the fact that their counterpart was the most advanced regional grouping in terms of economic and political integration. In turn, EU acceptance and treat- ment of the East Asian member states as a collective entity has reinforced the conception of East Asia as a region (Gilson and Yeo, 2004: 28-29). Some also argue that it is not only the East Asians who have used ASEM as an identity-builder. The Europeans are also using ASEM to help in the fostering of a common foreign and security policy and to reinforce a European identity that could be presented to the outside world. The EU, despite its integration, still follows an essen- tially inter-governmental logic in its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The EU’s inter- and trans-regional dialogues could help stimulate greater coordination and cohesion in the EU’s CFSP and in fostering an international identity of the EU on the global stage. This identity has often been characterised as unique or sui generis and the Union presents itself as a normative power or civilian power. All these terms broadly refer to the EU’s distinct foreign policy principles that accept the necessity of cooperation with others in pursuit of interna- tional objectives, thus a preference for diplomacy, multilateralism and institutionalised agreements to achieve its foreign policy goals (Smith, 2005:15). Seen from the perspective of constructivists, ASEM is essentially an instrument for intra-regional integration. 12 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM There is no doubt that the preparations for ASEM set off a process of consultation and coordination among the Asian ASEM members who up till then have no forum that linked the Northeast Asians with the Southeast Asians. The Asian ASEM members “coincidentally” consti- tuted the East Asia Economic Grouping (EAEG) that was first mooted by Mahathir back in 1990. Many were hopeful that the ASEM process would help Asia define itself, and that East Asians would establish a greater sense of regional cohesion to enable to play a greater role in the emerging post-Cold War global order. In short, ASEM was “instrumen- talised” to portray East Asia as a major region in the triadic relationship between three key engines of growth - North America, West Europe and East Asia - of which East Asia represents a major pole in an emerging multi-polar world. While initially insisting the ASEM is an essentially inter-governmen- tal, state-to-state forum, over the years, the East Asians have also not objected when the process began to adopt more features of a region- to-region dialogue. The inter-regional or trans-regional dimension of ASEM was particularly pursued by the EU to achieve the objectives of balancing the rise of APEC and to create networks of institutions that would contribute to multilateral and multi-level global governance. There is also no doubt that regionalism in East Asia did develop in the years from 1996 to the present, but there is no solid proof that ASEM is a major contributing factor. Paradoxically, it was the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis that had the salutary effect of stimulating new thinking on the part of East Asians with regards to regionalism. The crisis dem- onstrated clearly the interdependencies in the region, and the region’s vulnerability to external forces. The realisation that the existing regional cooperation arrangements such as ASEAN and APEC had been unable to make an effective contribution to solving the problem catalysed think- ing on the need for other institutional arrangements (Yeo, 2003:109). This gave rise to the ASEAN + 3 process, a forum that brought together Northeast Asian and Southeast Asia. Número 23, 2008 13
Yeo Lay Hwee Similarly, the EU also witnessed a deepening of its integration process as it prepared for a ‘big bang’ enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe. The 1997 Amsterdam treaty also made provisions to strengthen the CFSP pillar of the EU, and to ensure greater coherence and con- sistency of EU foreign policy. Again, this was driven by dynamics not related to the ASEM process. While East Asia and Europe are growing in importance as they each acquire increasingly a sense of regional identity (more so in the EU than in East Asia), it was unfortunate that the member states of ASEM did not cap- italise on this growing trend to develop ASEM into an effective region-to- region dialogue and cooperation framework that would partake in norms setting and regime creation to help shape the international system. While professing the desire to use ASEM to contribute towards multilateralism and global governance, it has not been able to focus efforts and strengthen capacity to do so. Hence, in both political dialogue and economic coop- eration, the member states have not been effective in using the ASEM framework to either shape the agenda in WTO or push for reform in mul- tilateral institutions such as the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) so as to strengthen global governance. ASEM’s relevance to the broader international context has therefore been questioned. ASEM has not been able to enhance the balance of power in the triangle remarkably. Nor has it been successful in coordi- nating or harmonizing the interests of its partners efficiently vis-à-vis larger international organizations and bodies. The idea of the potential that ASEM could develop into a much more efficient and effective inter- regional dialogue between two distinct entities, Europe represented by the EU and East Asia in the form of the ASEAN + 3 (APT) framework was also dissipated as ASEM enlarges on the Asian side to include India, Pakistan and Mongolia. The Asian side of ASEM has become more diffused – it no longer corresponds to the ASEAN + 3 framework; nei- ther does it correspond to the emerging East Asian Summit that brings together ASEAN + 3 plus India, Australia and New Zealand. 14 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM Earlier academic discussions that ASEM could develop into a well- established inter-regional forum with the ability to act as a rationaliser of international relations under conditions of complex interdependence are based on two pre-requisites – first, the Asian component of ASEM must become more integrated to act as a single regional entity and that the European component of ASEM, the EU, must increase its “actorness”. The latter is happening with the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), though many obstacles continue to plague the cohesiveness and actorness of the EU. East Asian integration, however, is in doubt and with the enlargement of ASEM to include India, Pakistan and Mongolia on the Asian side, regional coherence is further diluted. Can regionalism and interregionalism be “brought back” into the ASEM process and what can member states do to advance these two processes? Advancing Regionalism and Interregionalism within the ASEM Framework? To answer the question if regionalism and interregionalism can be advanced through the ASEM framework, first we need to look into regional developments in Asia and the EU. Regionalism in Asia The ASEAN + 3 (APT) framework which began in 1997 was the first forum that “formally” linked the 10 countries of Southeast Asia (ASEAN) to the 3 key Northeast Asian economies, China, Japan and Korea. The first meeting took place in 1997 in response to the Asian financial crisis. The Asian crisis led to intensified efforts by the East Asians to look into more formal economic integration as opposed to the more loose and informal economic interdependence that has existed for years. It Número 23, 2008 15
Yeo Lay Hwee also jolted the East Asians to the reality of the downside of globalization, and to rethink how regional cooperation should be developed to manage both the opportunities and the challenges arising from the increasing pace of globalization. Specifically, the Asian financial crisis served as a kind of catalysis for the formation of the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) process, a forum that brought together Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. The first APT informal summit was held at the end of 1997 at the height of the Asian financial crisis. The moves to closer regional coopera- tion in East Asia were concentrated in the macroeconomic and financial areas, and progress was made in the initial years with a number of cur- rency swap agreements. While the ASEAN + 3 process was a reaction to the crisis, it was quick to develop into an institutionalised process of meetings and dialogue among the leaders, ministers and senior officials. Cooperation also quickly extended from financial and monetary cooperation to many other areas, and the desire to create an East Asian Free Trade Area (EAFTA) was mapped out in the East Asian Vision Group report com- missioned by the South Korean government. All the official rhetoric and various cooperative initiatives generate optimism that East Asia regional- ism is on the move and this would eventually lead to the creation of an East Asian community. There is no doubt that an embryonic form of East Asian regional- ism has emerged with the regular ASEAN+3 meetings between leaders, ministers and senior officials. This is based on the shared embrace of economic development (market-driven integration) and the shared sense of vulnerability associated with the processes of globalization and regionalization. Greater regional cooperation is one of the few available instruments with which East Asian states can meet the challenge of globalization. Operating in a regional context, the East Asian states can “asianise” the response to globalization in what they see as a politically viable form. This is in part an insurance policy against another Asian financial crisis. Lacking the capacity to manage the challenge of globali- 16 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM zation at the level of nation-state, governments have turned to regional- ism as a response (Kim, 2004:61). In short, regionalism was to offer the promise of Asian solutions for Asian problems. Even before the Asian financial crisis, an emerging “East Asianness” was manifested by a new Asian cultural assertiveness in reaction to the triumphalism of the West. The common ground of opposing Western arrogance and hegemony, and limiting the role of the West, was encour- aging a sort of defensive regionalism. The moves towards affirming a regional identity with talks of Asian values can be seen in this light of repudiating Westernisation (Falk, 1995:14). The optimism surrounding East Asian regionalism at the turn of the 21st Century was, however, tempered by an increasing acrimonious relationship between China and Japan in 2004-2006 because of Japanese Prime Minister’s Junichiro Koizumi’s repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. The historical reconciliation between these two key East Asian powers that is crucial to the East Asian community-building project seemed far away. The ASEAN + 3 process, the cornerstone of East Asian regionalism, also started to fray when discussions began in 2004 to transform the said framework into the East Asia Summit, envisaged in the East Asian Vision Group report as the first step towards the long term goal of build- ing an East Asian community. Some ASEAN leaders believed that community-building could best be advanced through the APT framework, and that the ASEAN + 3 summit could simply be renamed East Asia summit to reflect the strong desire to create an East Asian community. However, regional rivalries and differences, particularly between China and Japan, leading to a more competitive rather than cooperative spirit, resulted in two different visions of the East Asia Summit. Japan wanted an East Asian summit that would include Australia and New Zealand, whereas China felt that the East Asian region has been clearly defined in the EAVG report as comprising ASEAN + 3. Número 23, 2008 17
Yeo Lay Hwee With the two key regional powers unable to agree on the definition of “East Asia”, it was left to ASEAN countries to be in the “driver’s seat” to decide on the membership for the East Asia Summit (EAS). It was dur- ing the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting in April 2005 that the three criteria for participation in EAS were set. These were: – First, participant countries must sign the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation; – Second, they must be a formal dialogue partner of ASEAN; and – Third, they must have substantive cooperative relations with ASEAN. Australia, New Zealand and India, having fulfilled all the three crite- ria, were then invited to join the inaugural EAS in December 2005 as full participants. Hence, an EAS comprising ASEAN + 3 + 3 was born. The discussions over membership of EAS highlighted the realities and reactionary nature of East Asian region-building. It also reflected fundamental differences among East Asian countries with regards to the content and end-goals of regionalism in East Asia. Economic linkages, however much they have grown, have yet to overcome problems that are at their root, non-economic in nature. East Asian regionalism will thus continue to be constrained by the lack of historical reconciliation between the two key players, Japan and China, and other political and strategic obstacles. ASEAN has occupied the de facto driving seat of building an East Asian commu- nity precisely because of this lack of reconciliation. And yet ASEAN is also struggling to make itself a more integrated and cohesive community. The central problem for region-building, whether in Southeast Asia, or Northeast Asia, and hence for the whole of East Asia is the tension between an essentially Westphalian political cul- ture in the region on the one hand and the strong economic dynam- ics driven by the forces of globalization. 18 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM What the current state of regionalism in East Asia means for the ASEM process is that the expectation that ASEM could develop into an effec- tive inter-regional dialogue would not be materialised as the concept of “East Asia” remains amorphous. The memberships of the various exist- ing regional architectures – the APT and EAS – also do not correspond to the existing Asian members in the ASEM process, complicating thus the process of institution-building and identity-building in East Asia. Integration in Europe and the EU’s international identity While regionalism in Asia is still at a tentative nascent stage, regional integration in Europe as epitomised by the European Union has gone far ahead. The EU’s identity as a distinct regional entity and a community is never in doubt. Its economic prowess and soft power has also been recognised and hence there are great expectations with regards to its global role and responsibilities. Being the world’s largest trading entity, the EU’s role in global trade policy is undisputed. It is also striking how much influence the EU has attained by its soft power, particularly in its own region, and it is carving out a respectable place for itself as a player in important global initiatives on climate change, environment and energy security. Yet, the reality is that when looking at the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the lack of a common position vis-à- vis Iraq was a stark reminder of the divergence and differences amongst the member states when it comes to the kind of role that the EU wants to play in the world. Doubts remain on whether the EU is capable of getting their act together when confronted with the questions of identity and interests and how to secure their place and influence in the world. The EU has attempted to forge an identity based on liberal humanitarian principles by casting itself in the image of a civilian power, but this turned out to be fragile (Peterson & Sjursen, 1998:179). With an enlarged EU stretching from Finland to Cyprus and from Ireland to Romania, the dif- ficulties in conceiving a consistent, cohesive foreign policy, giving cumber- Número 23, 2008 19
Yeo Lay Hwee some decision-making processes, different strategic interests held by its old and new members, and different foreign policy traditions held by big and small member states, cannot be underestimated. While some EU member states may want to play a bigger international role, the reluctance to move beyond the current inter-governmental framework in the CFSP pillar meant that the same methods and institutions used to encourage economic inte- gration are not readily applicable to foreign policy. The EU will therefore continue to impress more in potential than in reality. The latest Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) signed in 2007 has suggested some institutional changes to give the EU “a clear voice in relations with its partners worldwide”. The key changes in the CFSP pillar is the appoint- ment of a new High Representative for the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who would also be a Vice-President of the Commission. The High Representative / Vice-President of the Commission will be assisted by the European External Action Service, a joint service staffed by officials from the Council, the Commission and the diplomatic services of the member states. Purportedly, this together with the creation of a permanent post, the President of the European Council for two and a half years period to replace the current system of 6-month rotating presidency, would strengthen coherence in external relations and raise the EU’s profile in the world. Part of this equation to make the Union more visible and to strengthen the Union’s negotiating power is the recommendation for a single legal personality for the Union.1 The idea behind the latest treaty changes in the area of CFSP is to bring together the EU’s external policy tools from the different pillars and harness all the different resources to ensure consistency and effec- tiveness of EU foreign policy. Whether the latest institutional changes will truly transform the CFSP pillar is unclear. Arguably, some scholars see a lack of identity or common interests as a far deeper problem than the weak institutions. 1. http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm. 20 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM The EU needs to resolve the dilemma of what its common interests are in the ASEM framework, and what kind of role it wants to play within this framework. As Chris Patten noted, “given the sprawling variety of Asia it would be absurd to think of a monolithic EU-Asia relationship, a single policy or approach, equally valid across the whole region” (Dinan, 2005:542). How then do the various EU dialogues with its Asian part- ners in the form of EU-ASEAN; EU-China; EU-Japan, EU-Korea, EU-India, etc, fit into or interact with the ASEM framework? Would the reforms recommended in the Reform Treaty help the EU to find its footing in ASEM vis-à-vis a grand design of the evaluation about the role that the EU wants to play in the world? The EU should in theory be in a “stronger” bargaining position by virtue of the fact that it is far more integrated than the “Asian ASEM partners”, that it has been the precursor of group-to-group dialogue and purportedly has a common foreign and security policy. However, the reality is that the ambiguous role of ASEM led to institutional confusion and inertia. ASEM is originally conceived as an informal, basically state- to-state forum which should place it under the CFSP pillar and not in the Union’s external relations under the Community method managed by the Commission. ASEM thus challenges the division of power among the Union’s institutions and hence impact its ability to shape the agenda and steer ASEM towards a more productive dialogue. Undoubtedly, the value of the dialogue lies in its flexibility. It is a form of structured political relations that can be easily adjusted to the political ends of the EU without creating any substantial political obligation. In short, it is a low cost, low political risk venture. It is also a convenient way to convey political positions the Union has agreed on, and allow the Union to affirm their collective identity. Yet much more could have been achieved if more strategic thought has been put into the process and the institutional confusion sorted out over which pillar ASEM should fall under. The Reform Treaty with its recommendations may help in the latter in better coordination enhancing the role of the Commission and at the same time with greater institutional support from the Council. Número 23, 2008 21
Yeo Lay Hwee EU-Asia Relations and the ASEM Framework After more than a decade, ASEM remains essentially a loose dialogue forum stuck at the level of information-sharing rather than any substantive cooperation. ASEM leaders during the 2006 ASEM summit in Helsinki reaffirmed the importance of ASEM as a ‘multi-faceted dialogue facilita- tor’ and welcomed the role of ASEM as a ‘platform for policy development between Asia and Europe’ (Chairman Statement of the 6th Asia-Europe Meeting, 2006). In short, there is no strong desire from the ASEM leaders to change the current informal, loose character of ASEM. ASEM will remain as a forum for exchanging views, and concrete cooperation will take place mainly within the other frameworks of EU-East Asia relations. Its ambi- guities and amorphous character have also been reinforced with the latest enlargement to include India, Pakistan and Mongolia on the Asian side. The lack of strategic thinking on the EU side and the lack of unity on the Asian side meant that the ideal of developing ASEM into a more effi- cient and effective inter-regional dialogue contributing to global govern- ance through norms-setting and regime creation could not be realised. Given the current situation in the EU and East Asia, it is likely that ASEM will remain essentially as a loose, open forum, and in competition with other bilateral forums such as EU-Japan, EU-China, EU-Korea and EU-ASEAN relations for attention and resources. The EU appeared to have jumped on the bandwagon of “variable geometry” and “a coalition of the willing” approach in international relations and cooperation. Recognizing the great diversity of Asia, and the lack yet of a clear East Asian regional entity it has opted for a flexible, multi-layered strategy to extract the most out its partner- ships with the various East Asian countries. The EU’s own enlargement and its increased diversity perhaps also facilitated the acceptance of the practical- ity of such an approach. As for the East Asian countries, such a multi-level and multi-pronged pragmatic approach is certainly not alien to them, and would be happily embraced. The different national interests and the lack of 22 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM a distinct pan-East Asian regional entity had meant that the penchant for bilateralism has been the norm rather than the exception. What does this mean for the future of EU-East Asia relations? There is no doubt that EU-East Asia relations will remain important and continue to strengthen because of growing economic links and increased strategic linkages. In the economic sphere, Asia has recently surpassed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to become the EU’s main trading partner. Beyond economics, the growing interdependence meant that no global or transnational challenges can be effectively managed with- out deeper and closer engagement between Asia and Europe. As EU-Asia relations continue to grow in response to Asia’s growing weight in the international system, more thoughts need to be put into evaluating the role that the EU wants to play in Asia. What are the EU’s interests, foreign policy objectives and priorities in Asia? How does the EU intend to secure its influence? What are the instruments and resources available to achieve these objectives? How does ASEM then fit into the overall design? In the light of the rather inchoate configuration on the side of ‘Asia’ in ASEM, it is not likely that much of the “driving” force for the ASEM process will emanate from Asia. It is perhaps true that once created, international dialogues and forums such as APEC and ASEM will likely continue to exist even if they have outlived their usefulness. Bureaucrats in charge of the process will rather keep these “known” low risk, low cost “ventures” then to risk the “unknown” of doing away with them. Hence, ASEM, despite the lack of concrete achievements, will remain as one of the umpteen forums and dialogues linking the EU and Asia. The constructive vision of ASEM being an identity-builder in which regional integration is facilitated through interregionalism is hard to achieve within the ASEM framework. However, ASEM could still serve as a rationalizer or agenda-setter in global multilateral forum if leaders are able to capitalise on its mix of partners to focus on those issues that ASEM can value-add vis-à-vis other EU-Asia frameworks. Número 23, 2008 23
Yeo Lay Hwee ASEM and other competing EU-Asia frameworks ASEM is unlikely to be a key engine in propelling EU-East Asia relations and deepening the engagement. As noted earlier, EU-China partnership is gaining in importance – both strategic and economic. EU-India looks set to rival EU-China relations as the Indian economy continues on its posi- tive trajectory. EU-ASEAN relations are also on an upswing after years of neglect. The latest announcement of the commencement of negotiations for an EU-ASEAN free trade agreement confirmed this trend. EU-South Korea relations also look set to move forward with the proposal for an EU-South Korea free trade agreement. As for EU-Japan relations, though appearing seemingly low-key, remains as an important aspect of EU’s links to East Asia. During the 10th EU-Japan Summit held in Brussels in 2002, a ten-year Action Plan for EU-Japan Joint Cooperation was endorsed. ASEM has grown from a forum of 26 to 45 comprising the 27 EU member states, the Commission, the 10 ASEAN member states, ASEAN Secretariat, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan and Mongolia. As other dialogue frameworks gather pace, the problem and challenge for ASEM is to provide evidence of what ASEM can do that cannot be done without ASEM or in other forums and existing international organizations. ASEM hence has to take advantage of its “mix” in membership to retain some relevance by focusing on a few niche issues such as: Climate change and sustainable development After 12 days of meeting of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, no agreement was reached on a post-Kyoto accord to tackle global warming. The EU came to the UNFCCC conference in the hope of securing an agreement (after the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012) that would mandate much deeper reduc- tions on greenhouse gas emissions. However, industrial nations such as US, Japan and Australia baulked at any mandatory emission cuts that did not 24 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM commit emerging economies such as China and India. China and India in the meantime responded that any measures that impinge on their economic development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable. While they did inch forward in agreeing for the first time to seek ways to make “measurable, reportable and verifiable” emissions cuts, they showed no signs of agreeing to any mandatory restrictions any time soon. After much wrangling, what was agreed after several tense moments on the last day of the meeting was to fix a 2009 deadline for a new treaty to tackle global warming. Going forward, the ASEM framework which bring together the EU, China and India, could be a useful forum to explore the issue of climate change and sustainable development to close the gulf between the key players. The ASEM Environmental Ministers meeting could be used to cover important ground in the lead up to the UN meeting in Copenhagen in 2009 to increase the chance of success of future interna- tional climate processes to find an acceptable post-Kyoto agreement. Keeping protectionism at bay – maintaining an open, rules-based trade and investment regime A number of controversial cross-border deals in 2006 2 and open con- cerns expressed over the investments made by Sovereign Wealth Funds 2. In the US for instance, the China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) was not allowed to buy the oil company Unocal and a deal by a Dubai-based organization to take over from P&O the running of terminal operations at 6 US ports was blocked. In Europe, several pro- posed deals also ran into trouble – the plan by Italian energy group ENEL to purchase French Suez; a planned merger of German energy and environment giant EON and Spain’s Endesa; the global steel giant Mittal’s attempt to purchase Luxembourg-based Arcelor, etc are just some examples. Número 23, 2008 25
Yeo Lay Hwee (SWFs) in 20073 signalled increasing reservations about globalisation and the fears that economic nationalism and protectionism is fast rear- ing its ugly head. The voices of indignation and debates coming out from US and Europe in response to these issues reflected underlying fears and anxie- ties over the relentless globalisation and economic competition emanat- ing from emerging Asian economies. If the Europeans and Americans allowed economic nationalism to prevail and stepped on the brakes of globalisation, Asia may end up the big loser (Moeller, 2006). Much need to be done to address the fears and anxieties, and again, ASEM could be a useful forum to seriously discuss these issues to create common understanding to help keep protectionism at bay. Supporting Myanmar’s internal reforms While Myanmar has always been under the spotlight for its human rights violations, the events in September 2007 focused the world’s attention on this rogue regime. The violent crackdown on peaceful pro- tests by monks and ordinary citizens over rising fuel prices drew wide- spread condemnation and calls on India and China, Myanmar’s closest neighbours to exert pressure on Myanmar for some sort of reforms. China and India are supposed to have most leverage over Myanmar for economic and strategic reasons. While international attention have shifted to other hotspots – Pakistan, Kenya, Kosovo – the ASEM forum could be used to keep up the pressure on Myanmar to undertake step- by-step reforms. 3. A Qatar government fund offered to buy leading British retailer Sainsbury caused an uproar. Concerns were also expressed when China Development Bank together with Singapore’s Temasek Holdings took up stakes in Barclays, Britain’s third largest bank. 26 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM Conclusions ASEM was launched in an era of optimism with regards to globalisation and international cooperation. Regionalism, interregionalism, multilateral- ism and global governance were the buzzwords in response to the com- plexities of growing interdependence as a result of globalisation. ASEM like many other forums and institutions of that era was seen as building blocks for global governance. Neo-liberal institutionalism and social constructivism greatly informed the debates in international relations with regards to the roles of regional organisations and the way regional organisations develop their own external relations through interregionalism. However, a series of events at the turn of the century – the Asian financial crisis, a spate of violent anti-globalisation demonstrations scut- tling the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, international terrorism, the events of September 11 leading to the seismic error of the Iraq war, etc – greatly changed the mood. Global institutions, from the WTO to the UN to the IMF, are under stress. Multilateralism as a principled way of conducting relations between states in pursuit of an indivisible goal such as global peace and prosperity (as defined by John Ruggie)4 is withering away. What we are seeing may be the reversal of the institutional logic of international politics and the comeback of power and national interests as driving forces of state behaviour. Emphasis is shifting to low-intensity cooperation (so called flexible cooperation or variable geometry) which does not add to real solution of global problems, but instead a more shallow and opportunistic cooperation. In this kind of global climate, what ASEM can achieve is very limited. It will remain a forum for broad dialogue but not an arena for problem- 4. ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See John Ruggie, “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution” in Multilateralism Mat- ters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, ed. J G Ruggie. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Número 23, 2008 27
Yeo Lay Hwee solving. However, with some strategic thinking and clear setting of pri- orities, it is still possible to capitalise on the dialogue to focus on issues of mutual interest and seek common understanding and positions that may be helpful in supporting some sort of global agenda in addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing all of us. Bibliographical References “ASEM in its Tenth Year: Looking Back, Looking Forward - An evaluation of ASEM in its first decade and an exploration of its future possibilities” (Research report commissioned by the Japanese and Finnish Foreign Ministries) AGGARWAL, Vinod and FOGARTY, Edward A.. “Explaining Trends in EU Interregionalism”. In: Aggarwal, Vinod and Fogarty, Edward A. (eds.) European Union Trade Strategies: Between Globalism and Regionalism. London: Palgrave, 2004. DENT, Christopher M. “The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and Inter- regionalism: Towards a Theory of Multilateral Utility”. Asian Survey. Vol. 44. No. 2 (2004). P. 214-225. DINAN, Desmond. Ever Closer Union: An introduction to European Integration. 3rd Edition. Boulder and London: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2005. EDWARDS, Geoffrey and REGELSBERGER, Elfried (eds.) Europe’s Global Links: The European Community and Inter-regional Cooperation. London: Pinter Publishers, 1990. FALK, Richard. “Regionalism and World Order after the Cold War”. Aus- tralian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 49. No.1 (May 1995). GILSON, Julie. Asia Meets Europe: Inter-regionalism and the Asia-Europe Meeting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002. GILSON, Julie and LAY Hwee, Yeo. “Collective Identity Building through Trans-regionalism: ASEM and East Asian Regional Identity”. In: Stokhof, 28 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
Regionalism and Interregionalism in ASEM Wim; Van der Velde, Paul and Lay Hwee, Yeo (eds.) The Eurasian Space: Far more than two Continents. Singapore and Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies, 2004. P. 23-38. HANGGI, Heiner. “ASEM and the Construction of the New Triad”. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. Vol. 4. No. 1 (1999). P.56-80. Hurrell, Andrew. “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”. In: Fawcett, Louise and Hurrell, Andrew (eds.) Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organizations and International Order. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. KIM, Samuel S. “Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia”. Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 4. No.1 (January-April 2004). P. 36-67. MOELLER, Jorgen Orstrom. “New Globalisation Debate Threatens Asia”. Straits Times (12 April 2006). PETERSON, John and SJURSEN, Helene. “Conclusion: The Myth of the CFSP”. In: Peterson, John and Sjursen, Helene (eds.) Common Foreign Policy for Europe: Competing Visions of the CFSP. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. RUELAND, Juergen. “Asia-Europe Cooperation - the ASEM Process: A European View”. In: Jerneck, Magnus and Niemann, Ulrich (eds.) Asia and Europe: Regional Cooperation in a Globalising World. Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation, 2000. P. 183-197. RUGGIE, John. “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution”. In: Rug- gie, J. G. (ed.) Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. SMITH, Karen E. European Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Cambridge Polity Press, 2005. STUBBS, Richard and UNDERHILL, Geoffrey (eds.) Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994. TAY, Simon S. C.; ESTANISLAO, Jesus P. and SOESASTRO, Hadi (eds.) Reinventing ASEAN. Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, 2002. Número 23, 2008 29
Yeo Lay Hwee YEO, Lay Hwee. Asia and Europe: The development and different dimen- sions of ASEM. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. YEO, Lay Hwee. “The Nature and Future of East Asian Regionalism”. In: Yunling, Zhang (ed.) Emerging East Asian Regionalism: Trend and Response. Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2005. YEO, Lay Hwee. “The Inter-regional dimension of EU-Asia Relations: EU-ASEAN and the Asia-Europe Meeting Process”. In: Anderson, Peter and Wiessala, Georg (eds.) EU and Asia: Reflection and Orientation. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi Press, 2007. Yeo, Lay Hwee. “ASEM and EU-East Asia Relations: Origins, Potential and Reality”. In: Murray, Philomena (ed.) Europe and Asia: Regions in Flux. London: Palgrave, 2008. 30 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
The Theoretical Contribution of the Study Of
Regionalism and Interregionalism in the ASEM
Process
Lluc López i Vidal
The year 2006 saw the tenth anniversary of the first edition of
the Eurasian cooperation forum known as the Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM). ASEM 2 was held in London two years after that first meet-
ing, against the backdrop of an Asian financial crisis and serious doubts
regarding the continuity and usefulness of the ASEM process. In spite
of the difficulties encountered along the way, this interregional process
remains active today. Over the years, it has become a frank, open dia-
logue between the two continents on topics of common interest.
This article begins with a review of the state of the art in the study of two
intrinsically related fields: regionalism and interregionalism. In the first section,
I trace the theoretical evolution of the study of what has come to be known
as ‘old’ regionalism. As we shall see, this evolution has been closely linked to
the European experience. This explains the changes that have occurred in this
field since the ‘new’ regionalism burst onto the scene. This ‘new’ regionalism
– in essence, much less ‘European’ – made it possible to create a new analysis
framework to explain the phenomenon beyond the confines of Europe.
We introduce our theoretical study of interregional relations in the
context of this ‘new’ regionalism. Based on studies carried out by Jürgen
Rüland, Heiner Hänggi, Julie Gilson and others,1 I explore the most
important theoretical questions on the phenomenon of interregional
relations. This discussion will help us to evaluate the case study covered
in this article: the Asia-Europe Meetings.
1. Other scholars who have published on the topic of interregionalism include Yeo Lay Hwee,
Christopher M. Dent, Richard Higgott, Ralf Roloff, Michael Reiterer and David M. Milliot.
31Lluc López i Vidal In the section on the case study, I discuss the phenomenon of ASEM from three viewpoints. First, I examine the origins and evolution of ASEM. Second, I describe the interregional agreements associated with ASEM. Third, I discuss ASEM’s contribution to world governance. In the final section, I present my conclusions and assessments, in particular regarding the ASEM process and its future evolution, point to areas for further study of Asia-Europe regionalism, and make sugges- tions for monitoring the ongoing processes. Regionalism and Interregionalism in the Theory of International Relations The phenomena of globalisation and regionalism: fragmentation and integration as starting points Two events of the early 1990s had a profound effect on the configuration of the new international order: the fall of the communist bloc and the crea- tion of an increasingly interconnected and interdependent economy. After the communist system was dismantled, many authors proclaimed – prematurely – that the resulting new international order would inevi- tably lead to the convergence of economic, political and social systems, in what one author called ‘the end of history’ (Fukuyama, 1993). As the decade advanced, however, the expectation that the conflicts of the past would disappear as these models converged began to fade away. Authors such as Huntington began to discuss the possibility of conflicts arising between the planet’s various civilisations due to cultural and religious differences, rather than ideological differences (Huntington, 1996). Beyond the controversies stirred up by these books, the events of 2001 confirmed that, even in the new order, dangers and threats would have a greater presence than ever. The recent Iraq War, the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea only serve to corroborate this idea. 32 Documentos CIDOB, Asia
The Theoretical Contribution of the Study of Regionalism and Interregionalism in the ASEM Process However, in addition to the international disorder that resulted from the disintegration of the communist bloc, the acceleration of economic interdependence and the interconnection between the world’s various societies have sparked interest in a new phenomenon: globalisation. This process, while not new, is seen by some as proof of the greater inte- gration of the world’s economies and the intensification of their links in trade, finance and production. The first consequence of this process was the deterioration of the sovereignty of nation-states as the only enti- ties able to control their respective economies and societies (Baylis and Smith, 2005). Ohmae observed that the nation-state, while continuing to carry out its traditional basic functions of security and diplomacy, is no longer the system’s only unit of analysis, since economic activity no longer coincides with the political and cultural landscape (Ohmae in Telò, 2007). According to this reasoning, instead of nation-states, we should be thinking in terms of ‘region-states’ – that is, new economic spaces with different borders from those of the states (Morata, 2003). These hyperglobalist arguments have been the target of harsh criti- cism from globalisation sceptics. According to the critics, globalisation has not eroded the sovereignty of states and, in fact, states remain the main forces that shape the international order (Krasner, 1999). Some authors go even further, claiming that the phenomenon of globalisation has deliberately been exaggerated and that the world is actually less interdependent today than it was in the 19th century (Gilpin, 2002). According to globalisation sceptics, the hyperglobalist arguments should be understood as ‘political-ideological’ discourse advanced by governments in an attempt to regulate global capitalism rather than as a serious theory on the current situation and trends (Morata, 2003). In other words, the sceptics argue that globalisation represents an ideology that reinforces Western – and, in particular, American – hegemony. According to Telò, when we talk about globalisation, we must dis- tinguish between the phenomenon as a trend, on the one hand, and a certain type of political project, on the other. In the former case, Número 23, 2008 33
You can also read
